Topic: The DAO FAIL - page 11. (Read 20478 times)

Indeed . The Daoattacker is playing with ethereum devs and staying one step ahead-

http://pastebin.com/9MRVDC9h

I think the "hacker" or the DAO holders are trying their best to persuade the miners to work in their favour.

The miners will decide what the "intent" of the contract was? There is a voting going on in several mining pools.

The DAO Hack - Hitler Video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wu638L-iVt8 ROFL

The problem here is who decides what the "intent" of the contract was?

Does this help?

http://ebiquity.umbc.edu/blogger/2008/01/19/how-dr-suess-would-prove-the-halting-problem-undecidable/

Scooping the Loop Snooper
an elementary proof of the undecidability of the halting problem

Geoffrey K. Pullum, University of Edinburgh

No program can say what another will do.
Now, I won’t just assert that, I’ll prove it to you:
I will prove that although you might work til you drop,
you can’t predict whether a program will stop.

Imagine we have a procedure called P
that will snoop in the source code of programs to see
there aren’t infinite loops that go round and around;
and P prints the word “Fine!” if no looping is found.

You feed in your code, and the input it needs,
and then P takes them both and it studies and reads
and computes whether things will all end as they should
(as opposed to going loopy the way that they could).

Well, the truth is that P cannot possibly be,
because if you wrote it and gave it to me,
I could use it to set up a logical bind
that would shatter your reason and scramble your mind.

Here’s the trick I would use – and it’s simple to do.
I’d define a procedure – we’ll name the thing Q –
that would take any program and call P (of course!)
to tell if it looped, by reading the source;

And if so, Q would simply print “Loop!” and then stop;
but if no, Q would go right back to the top,
and start off again, looping endlessly back,
til the universe dies and is frozen and black.

And this program called Q wouldn’t stay on the shelf;
I would run it, and (fiendishly) feed it itself.
What behaviour results when I do this with Q?
When it reads its own source, just what will it do?

If P warns of loops, Q will print “Loop!” and quit;
yet P is supposed to speak truly of it.
So if Q’s going to quit, then P should say, “Fine!” –
which will make Q go back to its very first line!

No matter what P would have done, Q will scoop it:
Q uses P’s output to make P look stupid.
If P gets things right then it lies in its tooth;
and if it speaks falsely, it’s telling the truth!

I’ve created a paradox, neat as can be –
and simply by using your putative P.
When you assumed P you stepped into a snare;
Your assumptions have led you right into my lair.

So, how to escape from this logical mess?
I don’t have to tell you; I’m sure you can guess.
By reductio, there cannot possibly be
a procedure that acts like the mythical P.

You can never discover mechanical means
for predicting the acts of computing machines.
It’s something that cannot be done. So we users
must find our own bugs; our computers are losers!

If you are near an ATTM, the ATM malfunctioned, it spit out cash. If you take the cash and did not give it back, it is criminal action.

No, I do not agree!  The open letter of the attackers states what the truth is. I rightly created a child dao and used it to recursively get Ether. This is acutally not forbidden it is just a bug in a feature in a decentralized environment.

This!

Many mETH heads are making the incorrect assumption these fundamental security weakness lie within the DAO solely and not within the fundamental nature of the Ethereum blockchain. They are content to wait for the attack to come to them in a sense of naive delusion and ignore security researchers screaming warning signs to no avail.

http://vessenes.com/ethereum-contracts-are-going-to-be-candy-for-hackers/

http://hackingdistributed.com/2016/06/16/scanning-live-ethereum-contracts-for-bugs/

Incorrect! Turing-completeness is unbounded recursion. Thus it makes it impossible to encapsulate scripts from each other and from internal recursion, etc.. It is the opposite of your incorrect assumption!

You should stop spreading lies about computer science that you do not understand.

Rightly.. Ethereum was made for this type of shit & was never a good or FAIR idea anyway.
So what other outcome would the Investarded expect ?

Invest in scammy schemes for profit you get what's coming to you !

This will cause MP to fight them even more aggressively! We have war coming and the genius MP will not be the loser bcz he understand economics (i.e. reality) much better than Vitalik. Vitalik will be spanked on his shit soiled underwear diaper:

Blacklisting Feature going in the next Geth and they are calling it "illegal hashes" .

Nice Orwellian doublespeak. You cannot make this shit up.

Well the confilct appears obvious to many commentators.

Ignoring the legal factors which impact the game theory because that enterprise is not really decentralized (e.g. Vitalik, Tual, et al hyping moonshots to n00b dreamers without sobering disclaimers and the incestuous same set of good ole boys as Curators of The DAO), then I agree with you that the only fork of the Ethereum protocol which would be agnostic would be that which would futilely attempt to "fix" the litany of corner case bugs induced by Turing-complete programming.

Vitalik dumped a quarter of his share of the ethereum premine. He could use that money to bail out the DAO and stop a hard fork if he believes in his coin. He still has the other three quarters of his share of the ethereum premine. If he believes in his coin he could wait until it recovers to dump the rest.

If he doesn't help out his remaining share of the premine could become worthless.

What kind of help ?

If that is bad for the whole crypto currency community, then would the bitcoin holders give some help to the DAO owners so that there will not be a hard fork?

Right for whom ? It may be right for DAO investors.

But it isn't right for Ethereum investors, it isn't right for future potential Smart Contract consumers, it isn't right for the cryptocurrency industry in general and it isn't right for developers.

The very architecture of a smart contract blockchain makes the logic of the "Turing Complete" scripting language independent of the logic of the blockchain on which it runs. Kind of like the separation of executive a legislative powers in states. If you decide to p*ss all over that principle just to save yourself embarrassment and investors in a known risky asset from taking a haircut then you just kill it for everybody.

It's different if the remedy comes from within the logic of the DAO code itself. That would be appropriate because that was where the logic failed. But forking at the Ethereum blockchain level is just suicide.

I realise that only the DAO would be affected by the fork but that just makes it even worse because it shows that forks can cherry pick what contracts they want to immute. I'm afraid the damage done in terms of loss of confidence will be irreparable.

The reason I'm p*ssed off about this is that I consciously did not invest in DAO because I understood the risk and what I was investing in. i.e. I realised I was buying a contract that floated on top of the Blockchain that carried its own logic (and therefore risk) which was independent of that of the platform tokens.

Now I find that that was not the case. That the risk is transferrable to Ether token holders because the fork needs to occur at the blockchain level. I don't think thats acceptable and although I could live with it as a one-off I doubt that future investors of industrial calibre will give a technology that entertains such cack handed tactics a second look.